In short
Seizure does not transfer ownership of the telephone; the scope of the examination is read from the seizure record and the text of the decision. The record describes the device. The decision writes the limit of the examination. If the line is blank, the scope is not completed with a remembered brand, number, or application. A decision to intercept communications, and the record of a search of a place, are separate documents. Return is asked in the same file and with the paper in hand. Being told orally that the examination has ended is not a delivery record.
The record describes the device
The seizure record is the document that separates the device that was taken from the other property. In the heading, the unit that did the act, the place, the date, and the file number if there is one, are looked for. On the property line, it is looked at whether the brand, the colour, a distinguishing number, the case, the charger, and a card that was removed if there is one, are written. If the line is blank, the device is not treated as completed with a feature said later. If more than one telephone was taken, each must stand on its own line. Two devices written on a single line do not show which one the examination was directed at.
The record may also write whether the device was given by itself, or whether an objection was made during the act. This sentence does not mean ownership passed. The telephone is in keeping for the file. If a sentence of objection is not on the record, a word added later to a petition as "I objected" does not change the state of the record at that moment. The petition may write separately that the objection does not appear on the paper. An objection that does not appear is not treated as made, and the property line is not rebuilt. A claim of ownership is also read from the property line on the record. If there is no record, a transfer is not assumed.
The delivery paper signed at the police and the copy of the examination decision may not be the same page. The copy given to the person may not carry every line of the original in the file. A missing page does not mean the examination was completed. How many pages the copy is is noted from its edge. If the original in the file is longer, the petition writes which page was not on the copy that was given. If there is no page number on the document, a number is not invented. The file number and the unit that did the act are taken from the top of the paper. If there is no number, a later petition cannot show which seizure it was written for.
The text of the decision shows the limit of the examination
The limit of the examination is the line written in the decision. Which authority the decision issued from is read from the heading. A decision of a judgeship and a writing of the prosecutor's office are not the same text. Whichever stands in the file is the one that is read. While one is absent, the other is not completed as if it existed. If the decision counts messages, images, location, or a particular application, the scope is described by that count. If the decision writes only that the device will stay in keeping, it does not come out of this sentence that the data inside it was scanned. If the text of the decision is not in the file, the scope is not widened from the property list.
If the decision appears to belong to another person or another line, it does not come out of these two lines by themselves that the telephone in hand was examined with that text. The comparison is made by setting the definition line of the decision and the device line of the record side by side. Two lines that do not overlap are written in the petition as not overlapping. Overlap does not by itself build a result for or against either. If the decision writes a date range, the range is carried as it is in the decision. If there is no range, a day is not added.
Interception of communications is a separate decision relating to monitoring of the line. A record belonging to a search of a place is a separate document too. The writing of seizure of the telephone does not repeat the condition of that decision, and it does not stand in for it. That a telephone was written on the search record does not mean the examination decision was given. The examination decision is not treated as added by itself to the last page of the search record. If it was added, the addition is read with its own heading. If there is no heading, the addition is not completed as an examination decision.
The ownership line and the request for delivery
Seizure does not make the telephone the property of the file. The device may stay at the unit for a time. This stay does not mean return can never be asked. Confiscation is a result separate from the seizure record, and it is spoken separately in the judgment. The seizure paper is not read as a confiscation decision. If a writing of confiscation is not in the file, it is not assumed that ownership was transferred. That the device stands at the unit does not pass ownership to the administration by itself either.
The request is given to the file in which the seizure was written. The request repeats the description of the device on the record. If the date of the examination decision is in the file, that date is written. If there is no date, it is not added to the petition. An oral sentence that the examination has ended does not make delivery by itself. Delivery is seen by a delivery record or a return writing. If it is stated that the device is held as evidence, this text does not put a number of days on that holding. A period is not turned from the statute into a day from memory. Which unit the device stands at is asked with the file number. If the name of the unit is not on the record, the unit is not filled with a remembered building.
That a password is asked, that the content is deleted, and how the examination runs technically are not the subject of this article. The text tells of reading the record and the decision that the person has. How the device in keeping will be touched later is not written. If whether the device was opened does not stand on the record with a separate sentence, it is not completed as opened. If it is written that it was opened, which decision line it was tied to is set beside that sentence.
A property record and a data record are not the same paper
A line showing that the device was delivered does not by itself show that the data inside it was copied. If copying or an examination was done, the trace is looked for in the decision and in the examination record. If there is no examination record, a copy is not treated as existing. If it is written that there is a copy, which kind of data was taken is read from the line on that record. If the line says only that the telephone was examined, the petition writes this generality as it is. A general sentence does not mean every folder was opened. If there is a record line about the integrity of the copy, that line is read. If there is no line, an integrity number is not invented.
If a cloud account, a backup, or another device is not written on the same seizure paper, this text does not treat them as covered. Each record is tied to its own document. It is not said that all the data were taken before the tie is built. If correspondence belonging to a third person is stated separately on the examination record, the petition carries that statement. If it is not stated, it is not said that third-person data were taken. Which account or which application was written on the line that they were taken is carried with the words on that line. If there is no word, an account name is not added.
Taking property for a time while in custody, and a device under seizure, may not be in the same status. The frame of the rights during custody is under the heading rights in custody. This text does not repeat that list. How a statement at the police is weighed in the file stands under the heading the evidential value of a police statement. Whether a record that came out of the telephone stands in for a signed statement is the subject of that article. The record is not pasted in place of the sentence on the statement record. The two stand apart in the file.
The return sentence is built in the file
The return petition carries the description of the device on the record. A sentence of "my telephone was taken" does not show by which act it was taken. The petition writes the unit of the seizure record. If the date can be read, the date is written too. If the date cannot be read, it is stated that it could not be read. A date that is not there is not added. In Ankara, the addressee is the prosecutor's office or the court in the heading of the record. The name of a neighbourhood does not change this heading.
The request ties the allegation that the examination has ended to a document. If there is no document, it is not said that it has ended. If it will be alleged that the device belongs to someone else, or that data belonging to a third person are inside it, this allegation is also tied to the line in the file. An allegation that has no supporting line does not open the return by itself. If a return writing has issued, the date of the writing and the unit to which delivery will be made are read. While there is no writing, a day of delivery is not announced. A receipt paper given at the time of delivery is not put in place of the return writing. Which device was given back on the receipt paper is read side by side with the description on the seizure record. If the descriptions do not overlap, the failure to overlap is entered on the record at the moment of delivery. A difference remembered after it was not entered does not have the delivery treated as not having happened. The difference is written in the file separately.
The place of the frame before a statement is the heading before giving a statement. A statement taken at the prosecutor's office stands under the heading the record of a statement at the prosecutor's office. These two articles do not retell the device line of the seizure record. The frame is on the criminal law page.
Conclusion
When a telephone is seized, ownership has not been transferred. The limit of the examination is read from the description of the device on the record and from the scope line in the decision. If there is no line, the scope is not completed. A copy is not treated as existing while there is no examination record. Return is asked in the same file and with the document in hand. A decision to listen to communications and a search record are separate papers. The basis is the text of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271.